S. 13 (1) (iii) HMA | Spouse's 'Schizophrenia' Alone Not Sufficient For Divorce, Requisite Degree Of Mental Disorder Must Be Proved: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that the ground of a spouse suffering from schizophrenia, by itself, is not sufficient for the grant of a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 as it must be proven that the 'mental disorder' if of such a kind and degree that a spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with partner. Noting that Section 13 (1) (iii) of HMA does not make the mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of a marriage, a bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed thus: “The contest in which the ideas of unsoundness of mind and mental disorder occur in section as ground for dissolution of a marriage, require assessment of degree of mental disorder and its degree must be such that spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other.” The division bench opined that the personality disintegration that characterises schizophrenia might be of varying degrees and that not all schizophrenics are characterised by the same intensity of the disease. Hence, the Court added that the burden of proof of the existence of the requisite degree of mental disorder is on the spouse who bases his or her claim on such a medical condition. The bench made these observations while dealing with an appeal filed by a husband challenging a judgment of the Family Court dismissing his suit for the grant of a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of desertion, cruelty and incurable unsoundness of mind. It was the case of the husband before the family court that his wife (respondent) was suffering from incurable schizophrenia, which he claimed he discovered after marriage, which took place in June 2003. He stated that her mental illness led to erratic behaviour, including her getting up and going anywhere without informing anyone, losing the sense of wearing clothes, and, at night when the family members are asleep, she leaves the house alone. It was also claimed that upon receiving a piece of medical advice, he was fully convinced that the mental disease of his wife was continuous and incurable and of such a kind and to such an extent that he could not reasonably be expected to live with his wife. On the other hand, the respondent (wife) denied the mental illness allegations and countered that her husband and his family had subjected her to dowry harassment, causing her stress. She claimed her husband and his family members threw her out of the marital home, and her husband is planning to get re-married. Hence, she prayed for dismissing the husband's petition seeking a divorce. In its impugned judgment, the family court concluded that the husband could not prove the alleged disease of the wife/defendant and thus was not liable for a divorce decree. Challenging this finding of the Family Court, the Husband moved the HC, contending that though the suit was filed for divorce on the grounds of desertion, cruelty, and incurable unsoundness of mind, the Family Court erred in dismissing the suit without giving any finding on the first two grounds, i.e., desertion and cruelty. The High Court, having heard the counsel for the husband and noting that the wife was not inclined to contest the appeal, made the following observations: The respondent (wife) did not contest the appeal despite being served notice, which indicated her unwillingness to reconcile with her husband. This also indicated that she has abandoned the relationship, which is sufficient to constitute desertion. The appellant (husband) had suffered emotional distress due to the prolonged separation and the wife's conduct (parties living separately since 2012), which could constitute mental cruelty. The marriage between the parties had irreparably broken down and had been ruptured beyond repair because of the continuous mental cruelty caused by the respondent/wife. Against this backdrop, the Court concluded that the facts of the present case sufficiently point towards the respondent/wife's wilful desertion without any plausible reasons, which is sufficient for the grant of a decree of divorce in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. However, on the point as to whether the Husband could prove that the alleged disease of his wife was of such a kind and degree, which may be accepted for dissolution of marriage in terms of Section 13 (1) (iii) of H.M. Act, the Court observed thus: “No sufficient material was brought on record by husband except prescriptions of Doctors, which do not contain any specific finding that disease is having grave consequences as is referred under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the H.M. Act, therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, findings of the Family Court in this regard are just, proper, legal and do not suffer from any perversity…” The ...

S. 13 (1) (iii) HMA | Spouse's 'Schizophrenia' Alone Not Sufficient For Divorce, Requisite Degree Of Mental Disorder Must Be Proved: Allahabad HC

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

S. 13 (1) (iii) HMA | Spouse's 'Schizophrenia' Alone Not Sufficient For Divorce, Requisite Degree Of Mental Disorder Must Be Proved: Allahabad HC

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers